Oh, ok, yes, it's an Intel system. I don't have any AMD systems any more so I won't be able to help debug directly.
Gabe On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:18 PM, mike upton via gem5-dev <gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > Gabe, is that an AMD system? > > The intel side works fine, it is failing on an AMD system. > > I will try to run some regression tests and see if I can find a failure in > the standard set of tests. > > The AMD system I am on has a pretty old OS, which might be part of my > issue. > > I don't want to block the fix if it is working fine for others. > Getting the intel functionality is what I needed. > > > > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Gabe Black via gem5-dev < > gem5-dev@gem5.org> > wrote: > > > > I just tried running bzip2 approximately like the regressions would but > > with the KVM CPU, and it seemed to work just fine. The only thing I > changed > > was I hacked se.py to set the cwd to what bzip2 expects. Can you please > > provide more specific instructions how to reproduce the hang/crash you're > > seeing? If this is working as expected, it would be good to get it > checked > > in and get KVM working again. > > > > Gabe > > > > > > > > > > > > $ M5_CPU2000=/usr/local/google/home/gabeblack/gem5/dist/m5/cpu2000/ > > ./build/X86/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py -c > > > > > /usr/local/google/home/gabeblack/gem5/dist/m5/cpu2000/binaries/x86/linux/bzip2 > > --cpu-type=kvm -o 'input.source 1' > > gem5 Simulator System. http://gem5.org > > gem5 is copyrighted software; use the --copyright option for details. > > > > gem5 compiled Dec 14 2014 21:18:54 > > gem5 started Dec 14 2014 21:49:12 > > gem5 executing on gabeblackz620.mtv.corp.google.com > > command line: ./build/X86/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py -c > > > > > /usr/local/google/home/gabeblack/gem5/dist/m5/cpu2000/binaries/x86/linux/bzip2 > > --cpu-type=kvm -o input.source 1 > > Global frequency set at 1000000000000 ticks per second > > warn: DRAM device capacity (8192 Mbytes) does not match the address range > > assigned (512 Mbytes) > > 0: system.remote_gdb.listener: listening for remote gdb #0 on port 7000 > > **** REAL SIMULATION **** > > info: KVM: Coalesced MMIO disabled by config. > > info: Entering event queue @ 0. Starting simulation... > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x12) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x11) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x4b564d01) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x4b564d00) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x40000000) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x40000001) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x40000073) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x4b564d02) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x4b564d03) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x4b564d04) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x3a) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x3b) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x6e0) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > warn: kvm-x86: MSR (0x1a0) unsupported by gem5. Skipping. > > spec_init > > Loading Input Data > > Input data 1048576 bytes in length > > Compressing Input Data, level 7 > > info: Increasing stack size by one page. > > info: Increasing stack size by one page. > > info: Increasing stack size by one page. > > Compressed data 198546 bytes in length > > Uncompressing Data > > Uncompressed data 1048576 bytes in length > > Uncompressed data compared correctly > > Compressing Input Data, level 9 > > Compressed data 198677 bytes in length > > Uncompressing Data > > Uncompressed data 1048576 bytes in length > > Uncompressed data compared correctly > > Tested 1MB buffer: OK! > > Exiting @ tick 13987682791500 because target called exit() > > hack: Pretending totalOps is equivalent to totalInsts() > > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Andreas Hansson via gem5-dev < > > gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > > > > > > This patch should hopefully solve the issue with the refresh event: > > > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2573/ > > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > On 11/12/2014 15:52, "Andreas Hansson via gem5-dev" <gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Hi Alex, Mike, > > > > > > > >I¹ll try and fix this whole issue of the refresh event once and for > all. > > > >SimpleMemory should only really be used for fast-forwarding and > > high-level > > > >sweeps, and I would like to ensure there are really no reasons to move > > > >away from the DRAM controller. > > > > > > > >It seems the sensible thing to do is to use startup and drainResume as > > the > > > >points where we check the mode of the memory system and either > > > >disable/enable the refresh event of the DRAM controller. > > > > > > > >Hopefully I will have something working before the weekend. > > > > > > > >Andreas > > > > > > > >On 11/12/2014 15:32, "Dutu, Alexandru via gem5-dev" < > gem5-dev@gem5.org> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi Mike, > > > >> > > > >>Are you running with SimpleMemory, SE or FS? On my AMD platform, for > > SE, > > > >>I get very similar execution times with old implementation, for > > > >>SimpleMemory and classic memory with detailed memory controller. Also > > > >>what linux kernel are you using? > > > >> > > > >>Thanks, > > > >>Alex > > > >> > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > >>From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] On Behalf Of mike > > > upton > > > >>via gem5-dev > > > >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:59 PM > > > >>To: gem5 Developer List > > > >>Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs Intel) > > > >> > > > >>I was testing this on both Intel and AMD platforms. > > > >> > > > >>The new code does seem to work for Intel platforms. > > > >> > > > >>The new code also seems to clean up a bunch of runtime warnings I was > > > >>getting on AMD platforms. > > > >> > > > >>However the new code on AMD is either much slower, or it is stuck in > a > > > >>loop. > > > >>A test that runs for 30 sec with the old code is running for more > than > > 10 > > > >>mins, and still has a long way to go. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gabe Black via gem5-dev > > > >><gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> That's not actually extending the TSS limit, that's what it works > out > > > >>> to be with the granularity bit set. The AM and WP bits were set to > > the > > > >>> wrong thing according to the comments next to them I'm pretty sure. > > If > > > >>> we wanted the other behavior, we might be able to change them back > > and > > > >>>have it work. > > > >>> The _BASE registers hold the base of segments as they're specified > by > > > >>> the ISA. The _EFF_BASE registers hold the base that will actually > be > > > >>> used in address calculations based on the mode of the CPU. For > > > >>> instance, if you're in 64 bit mode, the _BASE of DS might still be > > > >>> 0xFFF from when you were in another mode. The _EFF_BASE would be 0 > > > >>> though, since the DS base is ignored in that case. _EFF_BASE may > not > > > >>> be used by the KVM CPU, but it should be set up anyway in case we > > > >>>switch back to a regular CPU. > > > >>> > > > >>> Gabe > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Dutu, Alexandru via gem5-dev < > > > >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > Thank you for all the clarifications. I see that for SE to work > on > > > >>> > vmx > > > >>> the > > > >>> > TSS limit had to be extended, am and wp bits in CR0 had to be > reset > > > >>> > and *_EFF_BASE registers had be set in addition to *_BASE > registers > > > >>> > for TR > > > >>> TSG > > > >>> > IDTR. I wonder what is TR_EFF_BASE. It seems that the contents of > > TR > > > >>> > register (which gets passed to kvm) are the same if with or > without > > > >>> > *_EFF_BASE registers set. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Thank you, > > > >>> > Alex > > > >>> > > > > >>> > -----Original Message----- > > > >>> > From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] On Behalf Of > > Gabe > > > >>> Black > > > >>> > via gem5-dev > > > >>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:21 AM > > > >>> > To: gem5 Developer List > > > >>> > Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs Intel) > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Ok, I got SE working too. I'll clean up my patch and send that > out > > > >>> > in a bit. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Gabe > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com > > > > > >>>wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I figured out what the other problem was, so here's the review. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/ > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Gabe > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Gabe Black < > gabebl...@google.com > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > >> It was attached in my sent mail. Maybe it's being blocked by > > > >>> something? > > > >>> > >> I'm hunting down another problem so I don't want to move my > tree > > > >>> > >> around too much, but once that's done I'll post it as a > review. > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> Gabe > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Dutu, Alexandru via gem5-dev < > > > >>> > >> gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >>> I haven't received any attachment to your email. So I don't > > have > > > >>> > >>> your patch. > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> Alex > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> > >>> From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] On Behalf > Of > > > >>> > >>> Gabe Black via gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:42 PM > > > >>> > >>> To: gem5 Developer List > > > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs > Intel) > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> And... it turns out the KVM change wasn't necessary. If > you're > > > >>> > >>> working from my patch, get rid of where the segment limit is > > > >>> > >>> divided > > > >>> > by PageBytes. > > > >>> > >>> That was only necessary because I wasn't adding 0xFFF to the > > > >>> > >>> limit when the granularity bit was set. > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> Gabe > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Gabe Black > > > >>> > >>> <gabebl...@google.com> > > > >>> > wrote: > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > Oh, also segment limits weren't being computed correctly in > > > >>> > >>> > the installSegDesc function, although I don't think that > was > > > >>> > >>> > from the KVM stuff. Once it was fixed it required adjusting > > > >>> > >>> > the KVM stuff a little, though. > > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > Gabe > > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Gabe Black > > > >>> > >>> > <gabebl...@google.com> > > > >>> > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> >> Here is my patch so far. There were a few things wrong, > > > >>> > >>> >> although I didn't really keep notes. The limits were mixed > > > >>> > >>> >> up, the long mode bit was set on all descriptors when it's > > > >>> > >>> >> only valid for the code segment, privilege level > > > >>> > >>> >> 0 is the OS and 3 is for applications and not the other > way > > > >>> > >>> >> around, and I think the type was being set wrong for one > of > > > >>> > >>> >> the > > > >>> > segments. > > > >>> > >>> >> Also, the syscall and sysenter registers (star and > friends) > > > >>> > >>> >> require the segments in the GDT to be in a particular > order > > > >>> > >>> >> which I don't > > > >>> > >>> think they were. > > > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >> Gabe > > > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dutu, Alexandru via > gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >> < gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> So, I am doing this on an AMD system and I have SE > working > > > >>> > >>> >>> and am able to get FS entering into virtualized mode. > > > >>> > >>> >>> However, in FS I get an early exception while the kernel > is > > > >>> > >>> >>> booting. This seems a bit different from what Nilay and > > > >>>Adrian observed for FS. > > > >>> > >>> >>> Could you please share the diffs that got FS working? > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> Thanks, > > > >>> > >>> >>> Alex > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> > >>> >>> From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] On > > Behalf > > > >>> > >>> >>> Of Gabe Black via gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:07 PM > > > >>> > >>> >>> To: gem5 Developer List > > > >>> > >>> >>> Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs > > > >>> > >>> >>> Intel) > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> Oh, I see you have FS working again and not SE. NM, I'll > > > >>> > >>> >>> keep > > > >>> > >>> looking. > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> Gabe > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Gabe Black > > > >>> > >>> >>> <gabebl...@google.com> > > > >>> > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> > I have FS working again which is good, but I'm still > > > >>> > >>> >>> > having problems with SE. If you could let me know what > > you > > > >>> > >>> >>> > did to get things going that would be very helpful. > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> > Gabe > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Dutu, Alexandru via > > > >>> > >>> >>> > gem5-dev < gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Hi Adrian, > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Sorry for missing your first email. I do see the > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> interchanged segment limits for full system mode, > though > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> I get a different behaviour on my system. The > simulation > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> seems to hang in the > > > >>> > >>> following manner: > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Processor #0 (Bootup-CPU) I/O APIC #1 at 0xFEC00000. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Setting APIC routing to flat > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Processors: 1 > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> PANIC: early exception rip ffffffff807909a9 error 9 > cr2 > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> ffffffffff5fd020 > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Can please provide a patch with all the modifications > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> that fixed the issue on your system? > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Thank you, > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Alex > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> ________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> From: gem5-dev [gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] on behalf > of > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Adrián Colaso Diego via gem5-dev [gem5-dev@gem5.org] > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 2:09 AM > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> To: gem5 Developer List > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD > vs > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Intel) > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> You are right Nilay. I sent an email last week but > > nobody > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> has > > > >>> > >>> replied. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> It seems that descriptors (cdDesc, dsDesc and tssDesc) > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> located in src/arch/x86/system.cc file are not > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> well-initialized and as a consequence kvm does not > work > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> when > > > >>> > running in full-system mode. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Segment limits values (limitHigh and limitLow) are > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> interchanged and several segment descriptor values are > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> wrong too. If these values are corrected kvm works > again > > > >>>as before. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> Adrian > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> El lun, 08-12-2014 a las 22:50 -0600, Nilay Vaish via > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> escribió: > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > I also faced problem in getting KVM CPU to run in FS > > > >>>mode. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > I figured > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> that > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > the following changeset causes problems: > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > author Alexandru Dutu < > alexandru.d...@amd.com> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > Sun Nov 23 18:01:08 2014 -0800 (2 weeks ago) > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > changeset 10554 fe2e2f06a7c8 > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > I saw the hardware reason 0x80000021, but did not > try > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > to figure what was going on wrong. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > -- > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > Nilay > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Gabe Black via gem5-dev wrote: > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > I'm pretty sure entering 64 bit mode is the same > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > between AMD and Intel CPUs. I vaguely remember > there > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > being some subtle page table difference though, > and > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > gem5 is building the page tables in SE mode > instead > > of > > > >>>the kernel. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > Gabe > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Dutu, Alexandru > via > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > gem5-dev < gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Hi Mike, > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> trace-cmd is a very handy tool to get an overview > > of > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> what the kvm > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> kernel > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> module is doing before going into gdb. In extreme > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> cases ftrace can be useful as well. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> What is the error that you are seeing? Is it > still > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> failing to enter virtualized mode? > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> If that is the case and the hardware reason is > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> 0x80000021, that > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> seems to > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> be an unrecoverable exception > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> (drivers/hv/hyperv_vmbus.h in linux > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> kernel > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> source code). When running in SE mode, we are > > trying > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> to bring the > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> machine > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> state to full 64bit mode without going through > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> legacy > > > >>> > modes. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> It > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> might be > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> that Intel machines have a different way of going > > to > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> 64bit mode than > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> AMD > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> machines (different CR4, different way of > enabling > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> 64bit mode page > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> tables > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> etc.). I remember dealing with these issue for > AMD > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> platforms by going through System Programming > > manual > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> and making sure > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> gem5 gets all the > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> bits > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> right as there is not much the KVM kernel model > > will > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> tell about the > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> cause > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> of failure. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Best regards, > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Alex > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> ________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> From: gem5-dev [gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] on > > behalf > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> of Gabe Black > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> via > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> gem5-dev [gem5-dev@gem5.org] > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:08 PM > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> To: gem5 Developer List > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> (AMD vs > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Intel) > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> I'm not an expert either, but I did have problems > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> running KVM in SE > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> mode on > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> an Intel CPU. I didn't look into it that much, > but > > I > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> think things > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> failed in > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> the kernel somewhere. What might be happening is > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> that the different > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> vendors > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> hardware virtualization mechanisms are more or > less > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> picky about > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> various > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> things. Something might be set up incorrectly, > and > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> one > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> implementation gets > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> more upset about it than the other. I believe > there > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> are tools which > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> will > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> help you determine whether your VM state is > legal. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Perhaps Andreas > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> can tell > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> you more about those? > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> Gabe > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:29 PM, mike upton via > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> gem5-dev < > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> I have verified that x86 kvm works fine on AMD > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> platforms, but fails > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> on > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Intel platforms. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Any hints about how to narrow down the cause > > (other > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> than diving > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> into gdb, > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> which I will do). > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> I am not an expert in KVM or how gem5 hooks up > to > > > >>> libkvm. > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > > >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> >>> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> >>> > > > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> > > > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > >>> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > > >>> > gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>> > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > >>gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > >>gem5-dev mailing list > > > >>gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >>http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > > > > > > > >-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments > are > > > >confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > > >recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose > the > > > >contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy > > > >the information in any medium. Thank you. > > > > > > > >ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > > > >Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 > > > >ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 > > 9NJ, > > > >Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >gem5-dev mailing list > > > >gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > >http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > > > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy > > the > > > information in any medium. Thank you. > > > > > > ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > > > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 > > > ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 > 9NJ, > > > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gem5-dev mailing list > > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev